or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Raleigh, NC - HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Raleigh, NC - HDTV - Page 489

post #14641 of 15283
Thanks for the joiner info
post #14642 of 15283
This might be old news because I never watch these channels, but I noticed that both 22 and 28 are now broadcasting syndicated HD product.
post #14643 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by posg View Post

This might be old news because I never watch these channels, but I noticed that both 22 and 28 are now broadcasting syndicated HD product.

When did the broadcast TV networks start creating shows in HD? I've seen some HD syndicated sitcoms that I would have thought were too old to have ever been produced in HD.
post #14644 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

When did the broadcast TV networks start creating shows in HD? I've seen some HD syndicated sitcoms that I would have thought were too old to have ever been produced in HD.

Depends on how you phrase the question.

Do you mean when did the first network shows start shooting with digital cameras for HD?

I don't know.

But lots of TV shows were shot on film... and film is way higher than 1920x1080... so a little investment in scanning the film and you have HD versions of lots of old TV.
post #14645 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

When did the broadcast TV networks start creating shows in HD? I've seen some HD syndicated sitcoms that I would have thought were too old to have ever been produced in HD.

CBS went HD for all episodic filmed programming, excepting reality and news, in the fall of 1999.
post #14646 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post

Depends on how you phrase the question.

Do you mean when did the first network shows start shooting with digital cameras for HD?

I don't know.

But lots of TV shows were shot on film... and film is way higher than 1920x1080... so a little investment in scanning the film and you have HD versions of lots of old TV.

That's interesting information. I didn't know that it was possible to produce HD material from TV shows that were shot on film rather than on videotape in the era prior to digital TV cameras. That does make sense, though. I would imagine that the high quality scanning would make economic sense for only the most popular shows.
post #14647 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

That's interesting information. I didn't know that it was possible to produce HD material from TV shows that were shot on film rather than on videotape in the era prior to digital TV cameras. That does make sense, though. I would imagine that the high quality scanning would make economic sense for only the most popular shows.

Two examples of shows shot on film being converted to HD would be how they started running Seinfeld in HD later in syndication as well as the upcoming Star Trek The Next Generation Blu Ray releases.
post #14648 of 15283
Check out Andy Griffith on Netflix instant. It's only 4:3 HD but the clarity is amazing.
post #14649 of 15283
Video (and HD video) is an electronic format. Film is an optical format. I wish people could get the apples and oranges straight !!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the original production was on FILM, it can be scanned and tranmtted in HD, if it was produced on standard definition VIDEO, you're f%$$ed.
post #14650 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedon View Post

I didn't know that it was possible to produce HD material from TV shows that were shot on film...

The word you're looking for is telecine believe it or not. Just rolls off the tongue doesn't it? Not for me either.

There are still some current TV shows shot on film apparently. Early seasons of Burn Notice were shot on S16, early seasons of Castle on S35. I don't know if those productions are still using film, though the Panavision website still claims Castle as a film shoot (using Panavision cameras / lenses of course).

The current "it" camera for non-reality TV productions is apparently the Arri Alexa, which is a hell of a camera.

Nearly all of the feature film work that still uses film uses telecine as part of the workflow to produce a digital intermediate. So all the editing (the razor-blades-and-tape era of editing film are long over), color grading, and effects are done digitally. All that film is used for anymore is the original capture. And, or course, for the final delivery format, but that is changing too as more theaters move to digital projectors.

Enough -- probably more than anyone wanted to know on the subject.
post #14651 of 15283
Tried to record the Amazing Race tonight but the DVR said Recording Not Permitted (TWC). The other day, two recordings failed. Seems like they broke the software with some recent update.

Anybody else had similar issues?
post #14652 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post

The word you're looking for is telecine believe it or not. Just rolls off the tongue doesn't it? Not for me either.

There are still some current TV shows shot on film apparently. Early seasons of Burn Notice were shot on S16, early seasons of Castle on S35. I don't know if those productions are still using film, though the Panavision website still claims Castle as a film shoot (using Panavision cameras / lenses of course).

The current "it" camera for non-reality TV productions is apparently the Arri Alexa, which is a hell of a camera.

Nearly all of the feature film work that still uses film uses telecine as part of the workflow to produce a digital intermediate. So all the editing (the razor-blades-and-tape era of editing film are long over), color grading, and effects are done digitally. All that film is used for anymore is the original capture. And, or course, for the final delivery format, but that is changing too as more theaters move to digital projectors.

Enough -- probably more than anyone wanted to know on the subject.

Yes, but can you explain Technicolor in 40 characters or less? Just kidding. I know there must be a lot of expertise needed to do good conversions from film to high definition video.
post #14653 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgmayor View Post

Two examples of shows shot on film being converted to HD would be how they started running Seinfeld in HD later in syndication as well as the upcoming Star Trek The Next Generation Blu Ray releases.

Better examples would be the already released Blu-rays of the original Star Trek and Twilight Zone TV series.

Of course there are numerous films (theatrical films) on Blu-ray as well... but limiting the scope to TV shows, Twilight Zone is (I believe) the oldest TV show to be released on Blu-ray at this point... though there are others older that could be if demand is there for them.
post #14654 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDMe2 View Post

Better examples would be the already released Blu-rays of the original Star Trek and Twilight Zone TV series.

Yeah but I like Seinfeld and TNG better
post #14655 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgmayor View Post

Two examples of shows shot on film being converted to HD would be how they started running Seinfeld in HD later in syndication as well as the upcoming Star Trek The Next Generation Blu Ray releases.

When they re-transfer old film, I think there can be some quality issues due to the age of the film. I've been watching the re-mastered HD Seinfeld eps, and I notice that a very small number of them have moments where the colors get brighter & dimmer & brighter again in the span of a few seconds. I was worried about my TV, but it doesn't do it on any other shows , so I'm assuming it is something about the remastered eps. It is one of these things that if you notice it, it bugs the heck out of you.

Drew
post #14656 of 15283
Are the original TV shows that were recorded on mag tape even up to SD quality?

They get pretty close on the video reproduction of old film but not all the old stuff has good audio. Come to think of it isn't the audio track on film magnetic anyway?

I tip my hat to Twilight Zone and Original Star Trek since I grew up in the town that Rod Serling was born and went to High School in. Sort of like a local Andy of Mayberry is to Raleigh.
post #14657 of 15283
Those of you with an OTA antenna, how was your reception during the snow Sunday night? I'm particularly interested in your experience if your antenna is in the attic. My second-floor indoor antenna, which usually gets solid reception, gave me lots of pixellation and break-ups on WRAZ (Fox 50). I don't know how other channels fared, because I didn't record anything except WRAZ.
post #14658 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by conquistador View Post

Those of you with an OTA antenna, how was your reception during the snow Sunday night? I'm particularly interested in your experience if your antenna is in the attic. My second-floor indoor antenna, which usually gets solid reception, gave me lots of pixellation and break-ups on WRAZ (Fox 50). I don't know how other channels fared, because I didn't record anything except WRAZ.

My DVR recordings from WRAZ and one from WRAL had breakups Sunday night. I have an indoor antenna, not in the attic... and usually have solid signal... just not Sunday night when the wet stuff was falling.
post #14659 of 15283
I was watching WVTD during the transition from rain to sleep to snow. It was at the end of the LINSANITY game and there was a brief time when the signal broke up. I also had break ups at the same time on WXLV (on Directv, not OTA. OTA, WXLV was "no signal" during the sleet). This was the only time I had break ups. During the heaviest snow here in Burlington, there were no unusual break ups in my signals on Directv or OTA.
post #14660 of 15283
Watching UNC 4.1 from 9 to 11 and do not think I experienced any issues. This is a amplified Pre HD 4228 in the attic. But.... we did not get much snow in Holly Springs and wind was minimal. I sure have issues when the wind gets above ten knots however as we are in the middle of a lot of tall pines.

2-24-12 update. I wonder what kind of reception I will have this evening with this storm blowing through
post #14661 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmoraes View Post

Tried to record the Amazing Race tonight but the DVR said Recording Not Permitted (TWC). The other day, two recordings failed. Seems like they broke the software with some recent update.

Anybody else had similar issues?

Well, had 4 more recordings fail with no explanation. Time to call TWC and see what's going on with the latest software update.
post #14662 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmoraes View Post

Well, had 4 more recordings fail with no explanation. Time to call TWC and see what's going on with the latest software update.

Ironic. Our DVR has lately started recording programs that are not set in our program manger to record, but in a timeslot/channel that formerly had a program we did record. The new program name is accurately reflected in the guide, but the DVR seems to ignore that.

We have one of the Samsung whole house boxes if that matters.

Frank
post #14663 of 15283
What does TV-14 [LV] mean?

I saw it last night while watching Hawai50 on 5.1
post #14664 of 15283
Rated 14 and up for foul language and violence
post #14665 of 15283
Wow I guess I best quit watching that show
post #14666 of 15283
Looks like more windy reception forecast for this evening.

Oops did not mean to post two in a row. Please forgive me.
post #14667 of 15283
Sorry in advance if this has been covered, went through the forum, but I didn't find if there was a resolution. Please let me know if I am mistaken ...

I currently am trying to receive all of the local digital channels through TWC. I am only subscribed to Roadrunner so I have a filter on my line. In the past I was able to do this, but now I can get all except ABC11 (WTDV). When I called TWC, I was eventually told that ABC11 was moved and is now behind the filter I have on my line.

My question for the forum is:

1: Has anyone been able to successfully receive ABC11/WTVD through TWC with the "filter" ie. someone that just has Roadrunner? Did I just get bad information from TWC?

2: Is this legal? I was under the impression that as long as you had a service from TWC (even just Roadrunner), they had to provide all of the QAM channels (not allowed to filter them).


Thanks
post #14668 of 15283
I have TWC's Roadrunner but no cable service, so same filter situation.

I do not currently get WTVD or WUNC over QAM, only WRAL and WNCN and WRAZ. So their info matches my experience.
post #14669 of 15283
WTVD is QAM ch. 87.7 (in SD only), at least here in Alamance County. It, like all of the channels in the 87-115 range, comes and goes on what seems to be a daily basis. Currently, it is not there, but it was the other day. WTVD is the only Raleigh channel TWC offers here, so I can't comment on the others.
post #14670 of 15283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ab123 View Post

...2: Is this legal? ....

Maybe ask if it is moral. So you expect Cable channels you're not paying for if I understand you correctly.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Local HDTV Info and Reception
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › Local HDTV Info and Reception › Raleigh, NC - HDTV